Post on 13-Apr-2022
Activity-based flexible officeExploring the fit between physical environmentqualities and user needs impacting satisfaction,communication, collaboration and productivity
Zahra Zamani and Dawn GumDepartment of Architecture, EwingCole, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
AbstractPurpose – Corporations balancing real estate holding (CRE) costs with recruitment-retention increasinglyuse activity-based flexible offices (AFO) to right-size environments for a mobile workforce. In this layout,workers have the option to select between a mix of unassigned workstations and alternative work settings(AWS) that support autonomy andmobility. The open layout encourages visibility and access to colleagues toenhance communication and collaboration. Nevertheless, studies into the effects of AFO environmentattribute effects on worker needs and work outcome are sparse. Therefore, this study aims to focus onunderstanding how environmental features and psychological or job needs impact observed and perceivedsatisfaction, communication, collaboration and perceived productivity.Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected in a case organization piloting an AFO beforeimplementation across their CRE portfolio. A mixed-methods approach was used, including systematicobservations, space syntax and surveys collecting information on the observed and perceived satisfaction,communication, collaboration and productivity.Findings – Collaboration instances were higher in AWS, especially more visible and accessible open areas,supporting higher impromptu interactions and enhanced perceptions of productivity of team members andcross-team members. Privacy requirements linked to a greater demand for enclosed AWS. Teamcommunication satisfaction depended on how easily teams were located. Almost half of the user teamsclustered within workstation zones corresponding to territoriality needs. Job autonomy satisfaction dependedon the availability of preferred workstation or AWS, enabling private, uninterrupted work that enhancedperceived productivity.Practical implications – The case study findings indicated a correlation between the AFO environmentand worker needs impacting workplace satisfaction, communication, collaboration and perceivedproductivity.Originality/value – The findings form this case study indicated that a fit between the AFO environmentand needs impacted workplace satisfaction, communication, collaboration and perceived productivity.
Keywords Satisfaction, Communication
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionResearch into the impact of the design and configuration of workplace environments onemployee productivity, satisfaction and organization profitability has been well established(De Been and Beijer, 2014; Rolfö et al., 2018; Babapour et al., 2018; Wohlers et al., 2017).Enhancing satisfaction with physical work environments is crucial for organizations, as ithas been directly linked to job satisfaction and other outcomes such as productivity, stressor retention (Hoendervanger et al., 2018; De Been and Beijer, 2014; Rolfö et al., 2018;
The authors thank EwingCole for providing the funds to accomplish this study. Further, the authorswould like to thank Dr Nicholas Watkins for his contributions.
Activity-basedflexible office
Received 30 August 2018Revised 6 December 2018
27 February 2019Accepted 5 April 2019
Journal of Corporate Real Estate© EmeraldPublishingLimited
1463-001XDOI 10.1108/JCRE-08-2018-0028
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-001X.htm
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-based flexible office: exploring the fit between physical environment qualities and user needs impacting
satisfaction, communication, collaboration, and productivity
Journal: Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Manuscript ID JCRE-08-2018-0028.R2
Manuscript Type: Research Paper
Keywords: Communication, Satisfaction, Face-to-face interaction, Productivity, Activity-Based Flexible Office, Privacy
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
1
Activity-based flexible office: exploring the fit between physical
environment qualities and user needs impacting satisfaction,
communication, collaboration, and productivity
Abstract Purpose:
Corporations balancing real estate holding (CRE) costs with recruitment-retention
increasingly employ Activity-Based Flexible Offices (AFO) to right-size environments for a
mobile workforce. In this layout, workers have the option to select between a mix of unassigned
workstations and alternative work settings (AWS) that support autonomy and mobility. The open
layout encourages visibility and access to colleagues to enhance communication and
collaboration. Nevertheless, studies into the effects of AFO environment attribute effects on
worker needs and work outcome are sparse. Therefore, this study focused on understanding how
environmental features and psychological or job needs impact observed and perceived
satisfaction, communication, collaboration, and perceived productivity.
Method:
Data were collected in a case organization piloting an AFO before implementation across
their CRE portfolio. A mixed methods approach was employed, including systematic
observations, space syntax, and surveys collecting information on observed and perceived
satisfaction, communication, collaboration, and productivity.
Findings:
Collaboration instances were higher in AWS’s, especially more visible and accessible
open areas, supporting higher impromptu interactions and enhanced perceptions of productivity
of team members and cross-team members. Privacy requirements linked to a greater demand for
Page 1 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
2
enclosed AWS’s. Team communication satisfaction depended on how easily teams were located.
Almost half of the user teams clustered within workstation zones corresponding to territoriality
needs. Job autonomy satisfaction depended on the availability of preferred workstation or AWS,
enabling private, uninterrupted work that enhanced perceived productivity.
Conclusion:
The case study findings indicated a correlation between the AFO environment and
worker needs impacting workplace satisfaction, communication, collaboration, and perceived
productivity.
Originality:
The findings form this case study indicated that a fit between the AFO environment and
needs impacted workplace satisfaction, communication, collaboration, and perceived
productivity.
Introduction
Research into the impact of the design and configuration of workplace environments on
employee productivity, satisfaction, and organization profitability has been well established (De
Been and Beijer, 2014, Rolfö et al., 2018, Babapour et al., 2018, Wohlers et al., 2017).
Enhancing satisfaction with physical work environments is crucial for organizations, as it has
been directly linked to job satisfaction and other outcomes such as productivity, stress, or
retention (Hoendervanger et al., 2018, De Been and Beijer, 2014, Rolfö et al., 2018, Vischer,
2007). Personal and job associated needs may impact satisfaction with work environments
(Wohlers et al., 2017, Wolfeld, 2010, Jahncke and Halin, 2012). Corresponding to these findings
Page 2 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
3
scholars have developed the Person- Environment Fit (PEF) theory which discusses that
dissatisfaction may result from inappropriate adjustment between psychological needs and
physical environment attributes (Kristof‐Brown et al., 2005).
Organizations are interested in exploring alignment of their corporate real estate (CRE)
portfolio with employee activities and well-being (Alker et al., 2014, Appel-Meulenbroek et al.,
2015, Brunia et al., 2016). Novel workstyles, new generations, technology, and transforming
lifestyles have increased the demand for exploring the positive and negative outcomes of new
office layouts and the extent they fit psychological and organizational needs (Brunia et al., 2016,
Cai and Khan, 2010). As a result, architects and interior designers strive to create dynamic and
responsive work environments that correspond to user needs.
Shared office spaces and hot-desking are not new concepts, however technological
advances since hot-desking’s inception in the 1990’s have radically changed the need for desk-
based work or even office-based work. As workers embrace a work-life integration ethos of
“work anytime, anywhere”, organizations are seeing real estate space utilization rates averaging
between 60%-70% (JLL, 2019). In response, organizations are innovating ways to reduce square
footage per worker while providing relevant and adaptable workplaces for individual focused
work and team collaboration. The Activity-Based Flexible Office (AFO) is a newly transpired
office environment trend for efficiency and flexibility where employees decide where, when, and
how to perform the work (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011). It has been linked to reduced
overhead costs, enhanced workplace satisfaction and productivity, and increased networking
opportunities (Gorgievski et al., 2010, Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011, De Been and Beijer,
2014, Babapour et al., 2018, Candido et al., 2018, Hoendervanger et al., 2018).
Page 3 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
4
In response to underutilized space across an organization’s CRE footprint, the foundation
of AFOs is based upon right-sizing the workplace with the freedom to select from a variety of
work spaces based on user needs (Gorgievski et al., 2010). This concept is translated into
transparent spaces including unassigned workstations in open areas and different non-assigned
open and enclosed alternative work settings (AWS) for all employees (Appel-Meulenbroek et al.,
2011, Montanari et al., 2017, Hoendervanger et al., 2018, Wohlers et al., 2017). The limited
amount of empirical research on AFO’s to date has been overall positive.
Satisfactory operational outcomes for organizations depend on effective communication
and collaboration patterns of employees that facilitate productivity and knowledge transmission
(Alker et al., 2014, Brunia et al., 2016, Markhede, 2010). Therefore, workplace designers strive
to create spaces that enhance the chances of impromptu face-to-face communication.
Understanding how AFOs promote employee satisfaction, communication, collaboration, and
productivity is crucial for optimum task accomplishments and potential questions raised by the
development of this new type of workplace (Wohlers and Hertel, 2017, Rolfö et al., 2018, De
Been and Beijer, 2014, Babapour et al., 2018).
The popularity of knowledge work in current organizations introduces a challenge for
office environments that simultaneously support psychological and job needs to ensure desired
work outcomes. The theoretical framework for this study was based on combining existing AFO
office models suggested by Hoendervanger et al. (2018) (an integrated approach to providing a
mix of spaces related to a needs-supply fit for workers), and Wohlers et al. (2017). We
hypothesize that AFO spatial features (flexibility, workstation characteristics, visibility, and
accessibility) as well as satisfaction with environmental fit for psychological and job needs
relevant in the context of AFO environments (privacy, territoriality, autonomy, mobility,
Page 4 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
5
concentration) impacts work outcomes in AFO environments (satisfaction, communication,
collaboration, and productivity) (Figure 1). The following paragraphs will expand on these
spatial features, psychological and job needs, and desired work outcomes.
1) Spatial features: AFO work environments are flexible spaces with unassigned
workstations and a combination of open and enclosed areas that are expected to enhance
visibility and accessibility, face-to-face interaction, access, likelihood of encounters, and
frequency of communication (Peponis et al., 2007, Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2015,
Hoendervanger et al., 2018, Wohlers and Hertel, 2017, Rashid et al., 2006).
2) Psychological and job needs: Privacy is defined as a psychological need for workers to
seclude from social interaction or distraction accordance (De Been and Beijer, 2014, Appel-
Meulenbroek et al., 2014). Concentration is also critical for task accomplishment, especially
when employees need to focus on complex work (Hoendervanger et al., 2018). Although AFOs
contain enclosed AWS to mitigate the negative impact of lack of privacy and noise, the majority
of AFO settings are open and transparent. This condition has been linked to reduced privacy,
concentration, and satisfaction (Wohlers and Hertel, 2017, Danielsson and Bodin, 2009,
Hoendervanger et al., 2018).
Territoriality is described as the behavioral representation of feelings of ownership
towards social or physical objects (Brown, 2009). Personalization and establishing physical and
social boundaries in offices enable expressions of territoriality (Brown, 2009, Appel-
Meulenbroek et al., 2014, De Been and Beijer, 2014). Studies suggest that the flexible and
unassigned nature of AFO spaces may impose adverse work conditions by not supporting
territoriality and opportunities to maintain strong team communication and interaction (Ekstrand
and Karsten Hansen, 2016, Rolfö et al., 2018, Wolfeld, 2010, Danielsson and Bodin, 2009,
Page 5 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
6
Hoendervanger et al., 2018). Thus, we hypothesize that users’ need for privacy and territoriality
are negatively impacted in AFO settings.
Autonomy refers to employees’ level of control of time and place to accomplish job tasks
(Demerouti et al., 2014, Van der Voordt et al., 2012). Literature suggests a positive relationship
between a higher psychological need for autonomy and flexibility of working in different
locations (Van Yperen et al., 2014, van Koetsveld and Kamperman, 2011). Unassigned
workstations and alternative work settings (AWS) in AFOs are expected to enhance flexibility
and choice of spatial options corresponding to the need for personal and job autonomy (Appel-
Meulenbroek et al., 2011, Wohlers et al., 2017).
Mobility in the work environment is one of the central concepts of AFOs supporting the
need for users to move around and use activity settings of choice (van Koetsveld and
Kamperman, 2011). Therefore, AFO will be a good fit for an employee with job tasks entailing
frequent movements between settings (Hoendervanger et al., 2018).
3) Work outcomes: The diversity of work setting choices, high visibility, and unassigned
workspaces in AFOs are expected to support job needs that require unplanned social interaction
and intra-team communication, which are positively linked to worker satisfaction with an AFO
environment (van Koetsveld and Kamperman, 2011, Wohlers et al., 2017, Hoendervanger et al.,
2018). In contrast, AFO environments may not be a good fit for workers demanding routine,
concentrated work, or frequent contact with teams. Therefore, we hypothesize that satisfaction
with the workplace, communication, collaboration, and perceived productivity are influenced by
workers psychological and job needs that are affected by spatial features.
Despite the increasing implementation of AFOs, there are limited empirical studies that
evaluate the effectiveness of AFO environments related to worker needs. This research attempts
Page 6 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
7
to determine whether the environmental features of an AFO is supportive of the suggested
personal and job requirements and its impact on satisfaction, communication, collaboration, and
perceived productivity.
Methods
Setting
This explorative case study was performed at a large technology company, headquartered
in North Carolina, USA that planned on making a significant “cultural shift” from a traditional
workplace setting to an AFO setting. Cultural shifts are recognized as a challenging leadership
task as they aim for altering goals, roles, processes, ethics, communications, and attitudes within
organizations. As with many established organizations, the case study company’s current
traditional workplace setting was based on a typically hierarchical arrangement with all
employees in assigned spaces: senior management in private enclosed offices, general staff in
cubicles, and managers in slightly larger cubicles. Employee career expectations included
entitlement to larger cubicles and enclosed offices as they were promoted through the
organization. Occupancy data collected by the organization over two years indicated a consistent
60% utilization rate of their office space, reinforcing the need to implement a new real estate
portfolio asset management strategy. As part of this strategic decision process, the planned
cultural shift to an AFO setting would eliminate all assigned offices and cubicle workstations at a
ratio of 1 desk:1 employee in favor of unassigned seating at a ratio of 1desk:1.6 employees with
activity-based workspaces. In addition to more efficiently utilize real estate by transitioning to an
AFO setting, the company aimed at creating a more aesthetic workplace, incorporating their new
branding colors and graphics to create an environment that fostered collaboration, mobility, and
interaction.
Page 7 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
8
Before implementing an AFO setting throughout the company’s entire real estate
footprint, a partial floor in one of the organization’s buildings was renovated to represent a
modern atmosphere that incorporated AFO principals, giving 115 employees from four
departments diverse and flexible spaces for collaboration and concentration. The pilot
participants provided feedback on the impact of the design and configuration of the AFO setting.
The organization planned to use the input to modify the AFO standards used in the pilot to
maximize the effectiveness of their AFO setting in the portfolio-wide rollout. The AFO setting
in this study provided a 39% reduction in real estate per employee, from 123 sf/person in the
traditional setting to 75 sf/person in the AFO setting.
The pilot AFO design included the introduction of the organization’s eight new branding
colors and environmental graphics program refreshing a primarily grey, white, red, and black
scheme. Most of the space was carpeted, with resilient flooring in open alternative workspaces,
and a polished concrete circulation path through the area. Ceilings were lay-in acoustical tile.
Most enclosed spaces used modular walls with writeable surfaces, integrated monitors, and one
full glass wall at the entrance side of each room. Repeaters were added to increase the range of
the somewhat spotty existing WIFI system.
The 8,345-sf floor plan was organized into open workstation areas and a variety of AWS
(See Figure 2). These spaces include: (a) workstations: seventy workstations in 4-10 station
clusters in the open-plan areas. A height-adjustable-desk, ergonomic seating, and either one or
two monitors in each workstation; (b) small enclosed rooms: six phone /focus rooms of approx.
80 sf each furnished in a variety of soft seating for 2-3 people. Monitors were not included in the
phone/focus rooms; (c) team rooms: six enclosed team rooms at approx. 120 -100 sf furnished
with typical conference room tables and chairs and a monitor; (d) small open area: one small
Page 8 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
9
open phone room of approx. 80 sf furnished with soft seating for 2-3 people; (e) large open
areas: five large open furnished areas of approx. 280 sf that included a variety of soft seating,
small four-person meeting table configurations with monitors, and four duck-out areas with
casual seating; and (f) lockers: assigned lockers for all of the 115 participants.
Data Collection
The organization engaged in a test-pilot of the proposed AFO design guidelines before
rolling out the change company-wide. Goals for the test pilot included verification of the desk to
employee ratio, the number of enclosed and open activity-based workspaces, the types of
furnishings used, improved employee collaboration, and workplace satisfaction. A mixed method
approach was employed that integrated ethnographic methodologies (surveys and observations)
and space syntax for triangulation. Ethical approval was granted before data collection. Each
method is described in additional detail below.
Spatial analysis
Space syntax theory is a framework that recognizes connections between spatial layout
and user behavior (Peponis et al., 2007, Rashid et al., 2006, Haq and Luo, 2012). In space syntax,
the layout is recognized as a set of connected spaces with measurable visibility and accessibility
values (Haq and Luo, 2012, Turner, 2004, Behbahani et al., 2017). Visibility is measured
through connectivity values, defined as the number of immediate neighbors that are linked to a
corresponding space or vertex (Behbahani et al., 2017, Turner, 2004). Accessibility is measured
through Step-depth values, described as the average number of edge turns that one needs to travel
from the current location to visit other locations in the layout (Turner, 2004). Mean depth is
calculated by allocating a step-depth value to each space in relation to how many spaces it is
away from the original space that is inversely related to visibility values (Turner, 2004).
Page 9 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
10
The more segregated spaces have higher mean depth (MD), and conversely, more
accessible spaces gave lower MD values (a negative relationship between a variable and MD is
indicative of the variable’s positive relationship with spatial accessibility). This study employed
Depthmap, an open-source and multi-platform spatial analysis software, to perform space syntax
analysis. The software creates different maps of different spatial relationships based on lines,
nodes, and connections (accessibility, visibility, etc.) and performs graph analysis of the resulting
network. Since space syntax can be modeled before construction, it is recognized as an effective
and cost-saving tool for evaluating desired spatial properties, such as visibility or accessibility,
before detailed design or construction occur. (Haq and Luo, 2012, Rashid et al., 2006, Rashid et
al., 2009)
Behavior mapping
Observation data were collected using DOTT®, a web-based interface that allows for a
customized coding system. Pilot participants wore color-coded and numbered badges,
corresponding to their department and role (staff, manager, director, admin, etc.). The observer
systematically walked around a predefined observation route and documented users, posture,
interactions, departments, and the number of people in rooms. The workplace usage was
documented in the morning, noon, and afternoon each day, for five days during a typical working
week. In total, 1681 events were collected (Figure 3).
Surveys
Qualitative methods were employed to identify significant issues and subjects for the
client. Employees and a steering committee participated in focus groups as representatives of the
AFO users and leadership. After documenting and reviewing the comments, we compiled a list
of elements and potential questions aligned with the research objective and AFO workspace
Page 10 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
11
attributes. Framework questions were mainly derived from literature and previously developed
instruments (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2014, Rolfö et al., 2018, Mishra et al., 2012,
Hoendervanger et al., 2018, Brown, 2009).
The post-occupancy survey consisted of questions regarding spatial features (flexibility,
visibility, accessibility, workstation characteristics), psychological and job needs (privacy,
territoriality, autonomy, mobility, concentration), and outcomes (satisfaction, communication,
collaboration, perceived productivity). Responses were given on a five-point scale ranging from
1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), 1 (never) to 5 (all the time), or 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Examples of survey questions and theme classifications are presented in Table
1.
Content validity of the instrument was subjectively evaluated by researchers,
management team, and literature reviews (Rubio et al., 2003). Further, the pilot survey was
launched to quality experts and practitioners to verify its content (Rubio et al., 2003). After
conducting pilot tests and removing or editing ambiguous questions, participants were tested on
two occasions, a week apart, until satisfactory levels of reliability was attained (r=.72 ,p < 0.05).
Descriptions about the research purpose and a survey link were emailed to the 115 AFO
pilot participants. Survey participation was voluntary and data confidentiality was ensured to
participants in the invitation. The researchers were not granted approvals for gathering ethnicity,
gender, and age information. The principal component extraction method was employed to verify
if factors based on the data correspond to conceptual framework factors. The analysis derived
factors based on high loading values in the rotated component matrix. In total, 82 employees
participated from Department 1 (n = 29, 39.2%), Department 2 (n = 14, 18.9%), Department 3 (n
= 26, 35.1%), and Department 4 (n = 5, 6.8%).
Page 11 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
12
Open-ended responses
Open-ended responses were collected through the survey link to further explore
perceptions of communication, collaboration, privacy, territoriality, job satisfaction, and
performance.
Analysis
Descriptive, correlation and linear regression (for survey responses), and binary
regression (for observational data) were performed in SPSS version 18. To evaluate team
clustering (neighborhoods), unassigned workstation areas were divided into three main zones.
The boundary was defined by team rooms between Zone A and B, and the 90-degree angle
within the pilot area footprint orientation in zone C (Figure 4). To account for departmental
mixing, for each user sitting next to a person from another department in unassigned
workstations a value of one was assigned, and others were documented as zero. The open-ended
responses were reviewed and clustered into themes to grasp underlying reasons for the survey
ratings.
ResultsSatisfaction
Survey findings
Descriptive results indicated a high satisfaction score for the workplace environment (M
= 3.61, N = 82). Most users indicated that they were satisfied or highly satisfied with their
workplace (70.7%, n = 48). Only a few questionnaire respondents reported being unsatisfied or
very unsatisfied with the environment (18.3%, n = 15). Perceptions of workplace support for
concentrated work at workstations (β = .73, p < 0.001), use of large enclosed spaces (β = .28, p =
0.005), and availability of preferred workspaces (β = .30, p = 0.015) were significant predictors
Page 12 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
13
for workplace satisfaction. This model explained 63% of variance in workplace satisfaction, F(3,
69) = 42.34, p < .001. One-way ANOVA analysis indicated that departmental differences were
not a significant factor for work environment satisfaction or frequency of impromptu interactions
at workstations.
Descriptive analysis explored employee mobility workstyles as a characteristic of job
demands. We found that 47.6% (n = 39) of workers use a single work setting but often use other
locations (travelers); 22% (n = 18) perform activities at a single work setting and rarely use other
locations (dwellers); 15.9% (n = 13) perform some activities at a single work but often use other
locations (explorer); and 14.6% (n = 12) use multiple work settings and rarely base at a single
location (nomads). Results showed that the difference between mobility workstyles and
workplace satisfaction was insignificant, F(3, 78 )= .896, p >.05).
Open-ended results
Table 2 provides examples of responses and themes associated with workplace
satisfaction. Opportunities for meeting new people, desk adjustability, and impromptu social
interaction were positive qualities for some users. However, some users complained about how
the ambient noise was distracting and resulted in a high demand for enclosed rooms. AFO layout
functioned poorly for team identification and territoriality for users demanding higher intra-team
communication.
Communication and Collaboration
Observational findings
Face-to-face communication mainly happened along pathways and workstations, versus
AWS (n = 59, 37%, n = 57, 35%, n = 45, 28%, respectively). Table 3 compares documented
face-to-face interactions in AWS, reflecting that most interaction happened in large open seating
Page 13 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
14
areas. This was because documenting face-to-face communication in enclosed AWS was not
achievable for the observer. To overcome this observational shortcoming, we documented the
number of users in closed rooms as an indication of collaborative behavior. Findings showed that
most collaborative work (with groups of two or more) happened in AWS, especially in team and
large open areas (64%, n = 136, N = 380), versus workstations (n = 136, 36%) (see Table 3).
Correlation analyses were performed between spatial properties retrieved from space
syntax and observed interaction instances. Findings yielded that interaction between two people
in AWS was significantly correlated to spatial connectivity (r = .23, p < .001), visual mean depth
(r = -.20, p < .001), seated connectivity (r = .175, p < .001), and seated mean depth (r = -.144, p
= .003). This means that interaction between two people in AWS mainly happened in highly
accessible and visible areas. Instances of more than two people interacting happened mainly in
higher accessible areas (r = -.123, p = .012). As explained before, the negative coefficient
describes a negative association between interaction and mean depth values and thus a positive
association between accessibility and interaction.
Table 4 compares the number of user counts in each workstation zone (illustrated in
Figure 5). Further, regression analysis indicated that departmental mixing in workstation zones
happened in areas with higher accessibility and less seated visibility, (OR = .016, 95% CI [ .003,
.077], OR = .997, 95% CI [ .996, .998], R2 = .18). Additionally, being in Department 3
corresponded to 49% decrease in departmental mixing, 95% CI [ .36, .72].
Survey findings
Logistic regression with Forward Stepwise method was conducted to understand
significant predictors of face-to-face interaction. The results indicated that a 1-point increase in
workstation and laptop use corresponds to 55% and 65% decrease in the odds of interaction
Page 14 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
15
(95% CI [ .27 to .76], p = .003; 95% CI [ .18 to .69], p = .003, respectively,). Standing in
workstations was significantly correlated with interaction instances (r = .296, p = .001). Within
the AFO, a 1-unit increase in standing behavior instances increased the odds of interaction by
2.03 times (95% CI [1.13, 3.64], p = .017).
The regression analysis from survey findings indicated that 57% of variance for the
perception of satisfactory communication was predicted by satisfaction with finding individuals
at workstations (β = .40, p <0.001), amenities and quality of workstation (β = .32, p = .002), and
support for collaborative work (β = .25, p = .10), F(3, 63) = 30.62, p < 0.001. Paired sample T-
Test indicated a significant difference between perception of communication with teammates (M
= 3.28, SD = 1.07), versus other teams (M = 3.57, SD = 1.08), t (3.31, p = 0.001).
Open-ended results
Table 5 provides examples of open-ended responses and themes as related to team
collaboration and communication. Respondents described their satisfaction with flexible work
area options. However, some users reflected that they felt “less connected” with their team
members. They perceived the difficulty of finding team members reduced team interaction. As a
result, some habitually nested in the same workstation so they could be in proximity of team
members. For example, one worker stated, “my manager and majority of my team sit in the same
spots since we get in early.” This nesting situation was irritating for some other coworkers.
Some workers suggested the need for more structure and identifiable landmarks that
defined team neighborhood spaces. Corroborating with observational results, users from
Department 3 reported that they always sat at the same workstations. Qualitative results provided
in-depth insights on workstyle differences related to informal social interaction and collaborative
work. For instance, some users enjoyed how the AFO supported meeting different people and
Page 15 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
16
encouraged collaborative work; and some complained that spontaneous social interaction
impeded perceived productivity and concentration.
Perceived Productivity
Survey findings
The average score for perceived productivity was 3.01 (n = 76, SD = .89). Almost half of
the employees reported that they agree or strongly agree that their workplace enables them to
work productively (48%, n = 36). However, almost a quarter of users strongly disagreed or
disagreed about the workplace supporting perceived productivity (26.7%, n = 20). Perception of
productivity was impacted by different work styles. The analysis yielded that support for
concentrated and uninterrupted work at workstations (β = .47, p < .001), support for private
discussions in workplace (β = .19, p = .017), availability of small enclosed rooms (β = .17, p =
.005), satisfaction with amenities and qualities of workstations (β = .25, p = .003), and frequency
of using workstations of choice (β = .145, p = .028) explained 80% of variance in the workplace
support for perceived productivity, F(5, 61) = 52.87, p < .001.
Use of enclosed rooms was impacted by the need for privacy and reduced informal social
interaction. The survey analysis indicated that 28% of variability in the use of large, closed
spaces was significantly predicted by satisfaction with workplace support for private
conversations (β = .44, p < .001) and higher frequency of informal interactions at workstations (β
= .34, p = .002), F(2, 64) = 13.47, p < .001. Respondents expressed the need for more team
rooms for enhanced concentration. For instance, a user mentioned, “we need more private
collaboration/meeting spaces for more than two-three people.”
The result showed that 9% of variability in the use of small enclosed rooms (phone and
focus rooms) and 16% of variance in the use of open meeting areas were significantly predicted
Page 16 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
17
by the frequency of interacting around workstations (β = .25, p = .035, β = .23, p = .04,
respectively) and demanding available alternative activity spaces (β = .24, p = .049, β = .36, p =
.002, respectively), F(2, 64) = 4.25, p = 0.18, F( 2, 64) = 7.17, p = .002, respectively.
Open ended results
Table 6 provides examples of statements and emerging themes in response to factors
impacting perceptions of productivity. Respondents considered loud conversations and passersby
as sources of ambient noise which reduced perceived productivity at workstations. This resulted
in high demand for enclosed AWS as a means of supporting privacy and concentration.
However, the number of enclosed rooms were inadequate for this matter and finding rooms was
considered “time-consuming” and “frustrating.” Reflecting on the need for cultural shifts, users
mentioned that nesting behaviors were one of the reasons for room unavailability. As a result,
people utilized break areas or open AWS for phone conversations, which was uncomfortable
when discussing confidential information and amplified ambient noise around workstations.
Some users emphasized that AFO may fit the needs for Millennial age groups and highly
collaborative work but lacks adequate features for supporting concentrated and intra-team
communication. They described how locating team members was a challenge impacting
perceived productivity and suggested the implication of team neighborhoods. Workstation setup
was considered tedious and hindered perceived productivity. Some indicated that implementing
partitions between desks may enhance visual and sound privacy. One common theme impacting
perceived productivity was technology issues, such as lack of adequate dual monitors or
unsatisfactory WIFI connectivity in meeting rooms.
Page 17 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
18
Discussion
Satisfaction
The results demonstrate the importance of workplace layout that supports different task
requirements, such as spaces for concentration, collaboration, or team communication (Wohlers
et al., 2017, Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011). In line with prior literature, the flexibility of AFO
spatial settings, specifically a combination of enclosed and open areas that enhance autonomy,
enhanced user satisfaction (Candido et al., 2018).
Support for internal mobility was not a significant predictor for workplace satisfaction
which is in contrast with previous studies (Hoendervanger et al., 2018, Babapour et al., 2018).
Nevertheless, qualitative findings provided in-depth insight into user mobility workstyles.
Almost half of the participants indicated that they mainly used a single work setting combined
with alternative work areas, supporting previous studies (Montanari et al., 2017). However,
almost a quarter of users with routine workstyles reported the need for working at a single work
area and rarely other alternative spaces, as noted in prior studies (Wohlers et al., 2017, Rolfö et
al., 2018). These users were the most vocal regarding a perceived lack of support for territoriality
and intra-team communication (Rolfö et al., 2018, Hoendervanger et al., 2018).
Satisfaction with impromptu and spontaneous interactions around workstations differed
based on job needs. Consistent with prior studies (Babapour et al., 2018, Hoendervanger et al.,
2018), unscheduled meetings and interruptions connected to job matters had a positive impact on
employee performance as it improved collaboration. In contrary, some users found that
unplanned face-to-face communication in workstations was considered a source of work
interruption that reduced perceived productivity (Babapour et al., 2018, Hoendervanger et al.,
2018). These users perceived a higher demand for enclosed AWS for private discussions.
Page 18 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
19
However, the unavailability of rooms due to nesting behaviors reduced perceptions of a
satisfactory fit for autonomy, concentration, and privacy.
Communication and Collaboration
Physical proximity and visibility of the floorplan established co-awareness, between team
and non-team members, and facilitated information sharing and social interaction that has been
found in prior literature (Cai and Khan, 2010, Peponis et al., 2007, Markhede, 2010,
Hoendervanger et al., 2018). Our findings indicate that higher visibility and accessibility
enhanced face-to-face interactions and fostered knowledge exchanges with non-team members,
as supported by prior studies (Rashid et al., 2006, Rashid et al., 2009, Hoendervanger et al.,
2018).
Consistent with prior studies (Montanari et al., 2017, Markhede, 2010), face-to-face
interactions mainly happened at workstations and circulation paths. However, this behavior was
not impacted by spatial attributes, which means that people were interacting in workstations
based on necessity not the degree of visibility or accessibility of colleagues. This contrasts with
Markhede (2010) findings indicating face-to-face interactions were 50% more likely to happen in
higher visible workstations in an open plan office with assigned workstations for diverse
departments. This difference may be described as preferences for visibility and intra-team
interactions when departments have assigned workstations. Whereas in AFOs there are more
chances of departmental mixing, and therefore users avoid sitting in higher visible workstations
to prevent distractions and impromptu interactions.
Similar to prior studies (Hoendervanger et al., 2018), workers in jobs that required less
mobility and social interaction were relatively less satisfied with the AFO workplace as it did not
offer adequate spatial options for concentrated work around workstations.
Page 19 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
20
Satisfaction with inter and intra-team communication depended on work styles and how
easily team members were found at workstations (Haynes et al., 2017, Wohlers et al., 2017). In
fact, the lack of territoriality was one of the AFO challenges, positively impacting feelings of
dissatisfaction, frustration, and inefficiencies that had been noted in prior studies (Ekstrand and
Karsten Hansen, 2016, Wolfeld, 2010, Rolfö et al., 2018, Cai and Khan, 2010, Hoendervanger et
al., 2018).
Contrary to Wohlers et al. (2017) assumption, satisfaction with intra-team
communication was higher than inter-team communication. This may be due to almost half of
each department forming clusters in workstation zones, especially in more visible areas, to
enhance collaboration and ease of contact (Babapour et al., 2018, Rolfö et al., 2018, Rashid et
al., 2006, Peponis et al., 2007, Ekstrand and Karsten Hansen, 2016, Markhede, 2010, Cai and
Khan, 2010). Further, standing in workstations also happened in areas with higher levels of
visual surveillance and visibility, which promoted interactions among colleagues.
Visible and accessible AWS were a good fit for workers requiring a high level of
autonomy and privacy far away from workstations(Jahncke and Halin, 2012, Hoendervanger et
al., 2018). Opportunities for inter-team communications were amplified in workstations located
in more accessible and less visible areas as these areas supported the need for privacy and
concentration, as suggested by prior studies (Markhede, 2010, Wohlers et al., 2017, Appel-
Meulenbroek et al., 2015, Haynes et al., 2017).
Perceived Productivity
The findings reported that almost half of the respondents perceived to be productive in
the workplace. Work roles and needs impacted the requirement for disruption-free environments
for deep thinking and longer periods of concentration, as noted in previous studies (Haynes et al.,
Page 20 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
21
2017, Babapour et al., 2018, Rolfö et al., 2018, Jahncke et al., 2013, Wohlers et al., 2017,
Hoendervanger et al., 2018). Amplified interactions and knowledge sharing in the open
workplace environment increased perceived productivity for some workers. However, this
condition adversely impacted perceived productivity for some other employees by decreasing
privacy and increasing noise or distractions for others. (Alker et al., 2014, Rolfö et al., 2018,
Haynes et al., 2017, Babapour et al., 2018, Vischer, 2007, Jahncke and Halin, 2012,
Hoendervanger et al., 2018). Thus, workers described the need for using small enclosed rooms to
focus, reduce distraction from colleagues at workstations, and avoid noise from conversations.
Nevertheless, an inadequate number of enclosed rooms lead to discrepancies between
user needs for autonomy, resulting in a reduced perception of productivity (Vischer, 2007,
Wohlers and Hertel, 2017, Candido et al., 2018). In addition to spatial features, qualities of the
workstation, such as the height of partitions, ease of setup, availability of appropriate equipment
and supplies, and reliable Wi-Fi impacted perceptions of productivity, as noted in previous
studies (Babapour et al., 2018, Rolfö et al., 2018, Wohlers and Hertel, 2017). Similar to previous
literature (Rolfö et al., 2018), users suggested the use of additional partitions at the sides of
workstations to separate workstations and eliminate noise, and enhance visual privacy.
Design ImplicationsSeveral implications for AFO design emerged from this study related to the framework
categories to address how spatial features can support personal and job needs for optimizing
work outcomes.
Page 21 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
22
Psychological and Job Needs
Privacy
Providing a higher percentage of single-occupant enclosed private spaces would
minimize nesting in larger enclosed spaces. Study participants requiring enclosed spaces for
concentrated work reported a lack of readily accessible small enclosed rooms, partly due to other
participants nesting in them to perform individual focused work. The smallest enclosed rooms in
the study were sized for 2 to 3 people. Providing single-occupant enclosed spaces would increase
the number of appropriate spaces for concentrated individual work and allow more efficient use
of multi-person enclosed spaces for group interactions. Further, the AFO needs effective
leadership related to etiquette and speech policy implementation for enhanced use and
satisfaction.
Territoriality
Establish neighborhoods to support intra-team communication and collaboration. Within
the study, departmental teams self-organized into neighborhoods by nesting within unassigned
workstation areas. Rather than discouraging or ignoring this practice, defining neighborhoods for
teams requiring high intra-team communication would support team collaboration and ease of
locating team members. Creating neighborhoods designated as quiet zones through physical
separation and quiet speech and etiquette policies would support worker needs for concentrated
work at workstations. Quiet zone neighborhoods could also offset the need for a higher number
of enclosed single-person rooms, addressing worker satisfaction and perceived productivity
related to noise and distractions in a cost-effective manner. Decorative cut-felt panels provide
some visual separation between the workstations and main circulation path. Delineation between
circulation paths and immediately adjacent open work areas using color or textural changes in
Page 22 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
23
carpeting would also provide appropriate visual wayfinding cues while minimizing sound
distractions from foot traffic.
Autonomy
Interactions in AFO unassigned workstations are not dependent on visibility and
accessibility. Study participants chose less visible/accessible workstations to facilitate focused
work and interacted in workstations out of necessity. However, standing at a workstation
increased the likelihood of interactions. Modulating the visibility and accessibility of workstation
clusters/neighborhoods and using height adjustable desks can provide additional choices in an
AFO to accommodate workstyles.
The open nature and workspace choices in the AFO setting encourage collaborative
interaction, inter-departmental mixing, and support individual work styles. Study participants felt
the AFO setting provided opportunities for meeting new people within their organization and
impromptu social interaction, which increased their workplace satisfaction. Conversely, many
participants found the ambient noise in the AFO setting distracting. More private spaces enclosed
with sound absorbing materials and strategically located throughout the AFO could assist with
sound control while maintaining the visual connectivity that correlated to interpersonal
interactions within this study.
Mobility
Workers with jobs requiring high levels of social interaction and a variety of AWSs were
relatively more satisfied with the AFO environment. However, to fit the needs of employees with
a more sedentary workstyle, we suggest allocating shared workstations areas that require less
setup time.
Page 23 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
24
Concentration
Provide better control of ambient noise and visual distractions to support concentrated
work at workstations. Controlling ambient noise within open work plans is an industry-wide
challenge. This study attempted to control noise distraction through strategically placed enclosed
spaces; breaking the large open floor plan into zones of 20 workstations; and using finish
materials such as carpeted workstation zones, acoustical ceiling tiles, and ceiling hung decorative
cut-felt panels between workstations and the main circulation path. However, the polished
concrete flooring in the main circulation path connecting workstation zones resulted in
complaints regarding continuously loud foot traffic.
Study findings reported a significant correlation between standing while working and
increased interactions at workstations. Standing typically occurred in areas of higher visual
surveillance and visibility, making it easier for participants to locate and interact with team
members as well as increasing interactions between non-team members. This has implications
for increased cross-team collaborations. However, users need to be provided with options to
adjust partitions or workstations when their work requires higher concentration. Participants
expressed the need for visual separation between adjacent workstations to enhance concentration
and perceived productivity at workstations. Acoustical panels attached to the sides of adjustable
height work surfaces would increase visual separation and provide some additional sound
control.
ConclusionThis case study adds to the growing knowledge base by identifying the effects of AFO
physical features on communication, collaboration, satisfaction, and perceived productivity
outcomes that differ based on job and psychological needs. Workplace satisfaction was predicted
Page 24 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
25
by AFO support of concentrated work, availability of large enclosed team rooms, and availability
of workspaces of choice. For workers with higher mobility and autonomy, openness,
transparency, and informal interaction opportunities were satisfactory. The unassigned
workstation arrangements facilitated inter-communication and departmental mixing. However,
almost half of users naturally clustered in the proximity of team members within workstation
zones. This behavior corresponded to user job needs for territoriality to promote higher intra-
team communication, proximity, and visibility. Job autonomy was impacted by the availability
of enclosed team rooms and workstations to focus on complex tasks and discuss confidential
matters. For some users, the number of enclosed AWS were inadequate and reduced perceptions
of productivity and satisfaction.
Most collaborative work happened in AWS, especially in more visible and accessible
locations. Satisfaction with communication was impacted when the AFO environment was a
good fit for workers’ needs for territoriality, autonomy, and collaborative work. Job demands
impacted the perception of productivity. Some workers perceived impromptu social interaction
around workstation as enjoyable and enhancing collaboration and perceived productivity.
However, for some workers having AWS that support private discussions and concentrated work
reduced distractions and amplified perceived productivity. In conclusion, the findings illustrate
the significance of evaluating employee workstyle needs before creating AFO environments to
satisfy the PEF theory.
Involving employees in the design and planning phases, as well as implementing quiet
speech and etiquette policies in work environments are suggestions to enhance employee
adaptation and acceptance of unassigned workstations/AFO’s. The results of this study are based
on a single case study. Therefore, findings should be used with caution. Further research into
Page 25 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
26
correlation among different AFO layouts and demographics, employee needs, actual productivity
measures, and satisfaction is necessary. Future research is recommended to document inter-team
and intra-team communication during observations to understand the relationship between
knowledge exchange, informal social interaction, visibility, and accessibility that would possibly
affect collaboration and trust development. Users reported technology issues to be a critical
factor in achieving tasks which impacted user satisfaction and communication. Future studies are
needed to shed further light on how technology integration in AFO layouts or work systems
function as moderators on satisfaction, productivity, or collaboration.
Additionally, future studies are recommended to employ behavioral shadowing or
tracking strategies to capture the flexibility of AFO spaces in relation to job tasks. This data will
document variation in duration and frequency of use for enclosed rooms, open areas, or
workstations based on job demands. This insight can contribute information in deciding the
number of rooms related to job tasks in future design recommendations. Comparative studies
investigating employee working conditions, behaviors, interactions, and perceptions before and
after transitioning to an AFO can provide important insight into the mechanism and effects of
AFO environments.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank EwingCole for providing the funds to accomplish this study. Further, we would like to hank Dr. Nicholas Watkins for his contributions.
ReferencesALKER, J., MALANCA, M., POTTAGE, C. & O’BRIEN, R. 2014. Health, wellbeing & productivity in offices:
The next chapter for green building. World Green Building Council.APPEL-MEULENBROEK, H., KEMPERMAN, A., LIEBREGTS, M. & OLDMAN, T. Helping Corporate Real
Estate Management with the implementation of a modern work environment that supports employees and their activities: an analysis of different preferences in 5 European countries. Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the European Real Estate Society (ERES 2014), 2014. 28.
Page 26 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
27
APPEL-MEULENBROEK, R., GROENEN, P. & JANSSEN, I. 2011. An end-user's perspective on activity-based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13, 122-135.
APPEL-MEULENBROEK, R., KEMPERMAN, A., KLEIJN, M. & HENDRIKS, E. 2015. To use or not to use: which type of property should you choose? Predicting the use of activity based offices. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 33, 320-336.
BABAPOUR, M., KARLSSON, M. & OSVALDER, A.-L. 2018. Appropriation of an Activity-based Flexible Office in daily work. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 8.
BEHBAHANI, P. A., GU, N. & OSTWALD, M. 2017. Viraph: exploring the potentials of visibility graphs and their analysis. Visualization in Engineering, 5, 17.
BROWN, G. 2009. Claiming a corner at work: Measuring employee territoriality in their workspaces. Journal of environmental psychology, 29, 44-52.
BRUNIA, S., DE BEEN, I. & VAN DER VOORDT, T. J. 2016. Accommodating new ways of working: lessons from best practices and worst cases. Journal of corporate real estate, 18, 30-47.
CAI, H. & KHAN, S. 2010. The common first year studio in a hot-desking age: An explorative study on the studio environment and learning. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 5, 39-64.
CANDIDO, C., THOMAS, L., HADDAD, S., ZHANG, F., MACKEY, M. & YE, W. 2018. Designing activity-based workspaces: satisfaction, productivity and physical activity. Building Research & Information, 1-15.
DANIELSSON, C. B. & BODIN, L. 2009. Difference in satisfaction with office environment among employees in different office types. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 241-257.
DE BEEN, I. & BEIJER, M. 2014. The influence of office type on satisfaction and perceived productivity support. Journal of Facilities Management, 12, 142-157.
DEMEROUTI, E., DERKS, D., LIEKE, L. & BAKKER, A. B. 2014. New ways of working: Impact on working conditions, work–family balance, and well-being. The impact of ICT on quality of working life. Springer.
EKSTRAND, M. & KARSTEN HANSEN, G. 2016. Make it work! Creating an integrated workplace concept. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 18, 17-29.
GORGIEVSKI, M. J., VAN DER VOORDT, T. J., VAN HERPEN, S. G. & VAN AKKEREN, S. 2010. After the fire: new ways of working in an academic setting. Facilities, 28, 206-224.
HAQ, S. & LUO, Y. 2012. Space syntax in healthcare facilities research: A review. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 5, 98-117.
HAYNES, B., SUCKLEY, L. & NUNNINGTON, N. 2017. Workplace productivity and office type: an evaluation of office occupier differences based on age and gender. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 19, 111-138.
HOENDERVANGER, J. G., ERNST, A. F., ALBERS, C. J., MOBACH, M. P. & VAN YPEREN, N. W. 2018. Individual differences in satisfaction with activity-based work environments. PloS one, 13, e0193878.
JAHNCKE, H. & HALIN, N. 2012. Performance, fatigue and stress in open-plan offices: The effects of noise and restoration on hearing impaired and normal hearing individuals. Noise and Health, 14, 260.
JAHNCKE, H., HONGISTO, V. & VIRJONEN, P. 2013. Cognitive performance during irrelevant speech: Effects of speech intelligibility and office-task characteristics. Applied Acoustics, 74, 307-316.
JLL 2019. Occupancy benchmarking Guide 2018-2019. JLL. Accessed Jan 2019 from: https://www.us.jll.com/en/trends-and-insights/research/office-space-benchmarking#report
KRISTOF‐BROWN, A. L., ZIMMERMAN, R. D. & JOHNSON, E. C. 2005. Consequences of Indiviuals' fit at work: A meta-Analysis of peron-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit Personnel psychology, 58, 281-342.
MARKHEDE, H. 2010. Spatial Positioning: Method development for spatial analysis of interaction in buildings.
MISHRA, D., MISHRA, A. & OSTROVSKA, S. 2012. Impact of physical ambiance on communication, collaboration and coordination in agile software development: An empirical evaluation. Information and software Technology, 54, 1067-1078.
MONTANARI, A., MASCOLO, C., SAILER, K. & NAWAZ, S. 2017. Detecting Emerging Activity-Based Working Traits through Wearable Technology. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1, 86.
PEPONIS, J., BAFNA, S., BAJAJ, R., BROMBERG, J., CONGDON, C., RASHID, M., WARMELS, S., ZHANG, Y. & ZIMRING, C. 2007. Designing space to support knowledge work. Environment and Behavior, 39, 815-840.
Page 27 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
28
RASHID, M., KAMPSCHROER, K., WINEMAN, J. & ZIMRING, C. 2006. Spatial layout and face-to-face interaction in offices—a study of the mechanisms of spatial effects on face-to-face interaction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 825-844.
RASHID, M., WINEMAN, J. & ZIMRING, C. 2009. Space, behavior, and environmental perception in open plan offices: a prospective study. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 36, 432–449.
ROLFÖ, L., EKLUND, J. & JAHNCKE, H. 2018. Perceptions of performance and satisfaction after relocation to an activity-based office. Ergonomics, 61, 644-657.
RUBIO, D. M., BERG-WEGER, M., TEBB, S. S., LEE, E. S. & RAUCH, S. 2003. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social work research, 27, 94-104.
TURNER, A. 2004. Depthmap 4: a researcher's handbook, UCL, London, Bartlett School of Graduate Studies.
VAN DER VOORDT, D., IKIZ-KOPPEJAN, Y. M. & GOSSELINK, A. 2012. Evidence-Based Decision-Making on Office Accommodation: Accommodation Choice Model. Mallory-Hill, S., WFE Preiser, WFE and Watson, C.(eds), Enhancing Building Performance. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 213-222.
VAN KOETSVELD, R. & KAMPERMAN, L. 2011. How flexible workplace strategies can be made successful at the operational level. Corporate Real Estate Journal, 1, 303-319.
VAN YPEREN, N. W., RIETZSCHEL, E. F. & DE JONGE, K. M. 2014. Blended working: For whom it may (not) work. PloS one, 9, e102921.
VISCHER, J. C. 2007. The effects of the physical environment on job performance: towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 23, 175-184.
WOHLERS, C., HARTNER-TIEFENTHALER, M. & HERTEL, G. 2017. The Relation Between Activity-Based Work Environments and Office Workers’ Job Attitudes and Vitality. Environment and Behavior, 0013916517738078.
WOHLERS, C. & HERTEL, G. 2017. Choosing where to work at work–towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices. Ergonomics, 60, 467-486.
WOLFELD, L. R. 2010. Effects of office layout on job satisfaction, productivity and organizational commitment as transmitted through face-to-face interactions. Colonial Academic Alliance Undergraduate Research Journal, 1, 8.
Author BIO
Zahra Zamani
Zahra Zamani has over 10 years of experience with design research. She has a background in
architecture and landscape architecture, and currently works as a design researcher at
EwingCole. Her research mainly explores the domains of healthcare architecture, workspaces, or
educational settings and its impact on satisfaction, preferences, use, wayfinding, and perceptions.
She is proficient in employing multiple methods to address research questions, such as surveys,
interviews, observations, or space syntax. She has been presenting her research findings on
design implications in multiple journal papers and international conferences for over seven years.
Page 28 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
29
Dawn A. Gum
Dawn A. Gum, AIA, IIDA, is the Director of Interior Architecture at EwingCole. Her 40-year
career has been focused on creating high-performance interior environments for workplace,
healthcare, and life-sciences organizations. She works closely with EwingCole’s design
researchers to translate their research findings into facility designs for clients that enhance
workplace well-being and productivity, and improved healthcare patient outcomes and
satisfaction with their care.
Page 29 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Figure 1. Research framework.
Page 30 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Figure 1. Workstations and alternative work area setups in the renovated floor plan.Figure 2. Workstations and alternative work area setups in the renovated floor plan.
Page 31 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Figure 3. Observed users of the AFO environment.
Page 32 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Figure 4. Workstation zones in the AFO layout.
Page 33 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Figure 5. Visual comparison of user occupancy in unassigned workstation zones indicates
departmental clustering (from left to right: department 1 in zone A, department 3 in zone B, and
department 2 in zone C).
Page 34 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Table 1. Example of survey questions and classifications Parameter QuestionUse of AWS How frequently within the last five workdays have you used…
phone roomsfocus roomsteam rooms
Workstation Attributes
How satisfied are you with...
sit/stand desk(s) comfort?cleanliness in workstations?overhead lighting
Privacy How satisfied are you with your workplace support of...telephone conversationsPrivate discussions
Territoriality How satisfied are you with ability to find...work-mates/teammates?other teams?your immediate supervisor?
Autonomy How satisfied are you with your workplace support of...using a workstation of your preferenceAvailability of workspaces (other than a workstation/s)?
Mobility Select the definition that describes your mobility workstyle more appropriately: I perform most of my activitiesat a single work setting and rarely use other locations within the office.at a single work setting but often use other locations within the office.at a single work setting but often use other locations within the office.in multiple work settings and rarely base myself at a single location within the office.
Concentration How satisfied are you with...ability to concentrate in workstations?distractions from unwanted sounds in workstations?visual distractions in workstations?
Satisfaction How satisfied are you with...a workstation/s?your work environment?
Communication How satisfied are you with...communication with your teams?communication with other teams?communication with your immediate supervisor?
Collaboration How satisfied are you with...collaborating on focused work?collaborating on creative work?
Productivity How satisfied are you with your workplace support of...individual focused work, desk based?individual focused work, away from desk?productive work?
Page 35 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Table 2. Examples of open-ended responses and themes on workplace satisfaction.
Acoustics I cannot concentrate because of the noise and people coming up to me to chat when
previously they would not stop by as much.
Concentration It is harder to focus in this space
Desk Availability many times, a workstation is not available when I need it.
Workstation
characteristics
My primary complaint is with the small size of the workstation; I like the Adjustable
desks
Room availability Need more private collaboration/meeting spaces for more than two-three people
Workstation
technology
Provide more double monitors available; I do wish each workstation was supplied with
a power cord.
Assigned workstation Having to find a workspace versus having an assigned space is very unsatisfactory.
Territoriality I feel less connected to my team
Culture The only issues I have seen are visitors not observing some of the quiet space, as they
are awaiting their meetings in the conference rooms outside of our space.
Social interaction Have met more people
Autonomy I enjoy the flexibility to sit anywhere
Page 36 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Table 3. Observed communication and collaboration in AWS and workstations.
Team Small Open Areas
Large Open Areas Small Enclosed Rooms
Workstations
n 9 5 28 3 57Communication% 8.82 4.90 27.45 2.94 55.89n 64 8 43 53 867Individual Work% 6.18 0.77 4.15 5.12 83.77n 86 4 103 51 136Collaborative
Work %22.63 1.05 27.11 13.42 35.79
Page 37 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Table 4. Observed distribution of departments within workstation zones.Department Zone A Zone B Zone CDepartment 1 n 121.00 70.00 38.00
% within Zone 46.36 23.89 15.97
Department 2 n 43.00 23.00 139.00% within Zone 16.48 7.85 58.40
Department 3 n 97.00 200.00 61.00% within Zone 37.16 68.26 25.63
Within Zone N 261.00 293.00 238.00
% within Zone 100.00 100.00 100.00
Page 38 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Table 5. Examples of open-ended responses and themes on workplace communication and collaboration.
Finding people There needs to be an easier system to finding people other than walking around the
entire space looking for someone.
Neighborhood We had been told that there would be identifiable neighborhoods and that has not
happened. It would be easier to say I am in such and such neighborhood.
Legibility? describing where you are in the physical space is tough.
Productivity In some ways, more productive than before (collaboration with others).
Intra -team communication This has been a challenge and looking for direction on how to not lose the connection
with one's team in this new environment.
Inter-team communication I'm not necessarily unsatisfied with lack of interactions with other teams, it just doesn't
happen.; It's nice to be close to people sometimes and see different people.
Distraction These areas are not conducive to collaborative work with colleagues in person or on
the phone because it is disruptive to others in the surrounding areas.
Social Interaction I don't mind being able to be interrupted by co-workers, in fact I think this is very
good for collaboration.
Number of AWS I love the additional conference rooms because I lead so many meetings and the
environment does encourage collaboration with other team members.
Job Needs This space focuses on collaboration, which is great, but most of my work is individual.
Page 39 of 40 Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Journal of Corporate Real Estate
Activity-Based Flexible Office: Fit between Physical Environment and User Needs
Table 6. Examples of open-ended responses and themes on workplace productivity.
Theme Example
Technology issues Cell phone service also is bad, rooms have not cell or WIFI signals which make it difficult for taking
calls. It needs to be fixed, we are losing productivity because of this issue;
Privacy;
Communication
Finding room for conversations is time consuming and frustrating.
Finding team
members
Face to Face conversations are worse because you can’t find anybody.
Concentrated work Having some flexibility to work from home a couple days a week would huge for my productivity.
There are often too many distractions in the office to allow for focused thought.
Work Style Needs For those of us who aren't in the ""Millennial"" age group, it seems like these spaces are designed to
discourage work from getting done.; Different types of work have different optimal work environments.
This environment seems best suited for highly collaborative work and social non-work
Workstation
Characteristics
the time it takes to get setup at a workstation in the morning is extremely time consuming
Page 40 of 40Journal of Corporate Real Estate
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960